211–220 of 643 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm using old.reddit.com, and it's ok. Shame if they would turn that off though.
There's a Chrome extension for redirecting to old.reddit.com: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/old-reddit-redirec...
Im just curious, what are the motivations for a company to make this move? It seems like a death sentence to me but I cant think of any examples off-hand.
At the same time, there is some manager with a spreadsheet that has new account creation metrics. S/he wants that number to be as high as possible. How do you do that if people do not actually want to make an account? Try capturing the people who usually click in from other sites and bounce back.
I think the end result will be that social media somehow becomes even more pictures of text than previously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A social network can only pick two. Reddit has all three (no need for email even), they might not be perfect but I can't remember any time I saw "viagra links" or other obvious spam. They have problems with accounts obviously, but you can't frame it as a spam problem.
I see a lot of spam on Reddit. That does nothing to speak of “auto moderator”, fragmented rules/guidelines and ilk and the sheer effort involved by volunteers. Even then: the spam gets through. But I agree that PII is not solving this.
Where? I've seens a couple of ghost subreddits with spam, but then you see the same with ghost fb groups, weird twitter profiles, youtube, etc On even moderately sized subs I've seen any that wasn't removed quickly by the mods.
People can say mods are too expensive for fb and twitter, but there is the dishonesty, instead of paying mods they pass on that cost to us with our pii while pretending it's free.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, in order to help out the unfortunate website operators, people should willingly give up pii that the same companies have shown they don’t give a damn about protecting. /s
"For your protection." The most abused and dishonest phrase of the 21st century.
As a shareholder--good. As a lazy Twitter reader--bad.
I could obviously be in the minority (though I'm certainly not alone), but I'm curious if you think that my scenario will be the less common one and this will actually increase signups, or if it will have a positive impact on the stock price in another way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Login is typically disabled for crawlers.
Which by Google's own T&Cs is illegal and could get your site dropped from their index... They state that you should not present a different site experience to their crawler compared to what normal users get. As usual it's OK for the big guys to break the rules whereas us little site owners have no choice but to obey them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is not reassuring considering their past abuse of phone numbers provided for allegedly only security reasons. [0] [0] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/twitter-uninentionally...
It's worse: Twitter staff sold private user PII to the Saudi government (the one that assassinates journalists): https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alexkantrowitz/how-saud...
So can people please quit posting twitter feeds finally? Some of us still have never used or signed up with twitter, or feel the need to, and really don't want to. Bad enough they removed non-javascript access, since they are permablocked through noscript here, I simply close postings on HN that link there and curse them for bothering. Asking for a login atop that is just a 4x non-starter for "news" links. Yes, some…
Clicking on a linked tweet still works, it's only when you then click on another from within the site that it asks you for a login. It's the same approach Quora takes iirc.
Somewhat perverse that it seems like the fall of Kabul was the motivation for this change.