Boy that's nice. I read a whole lot less Twitter.
Net gain for me.
Twitter starts to require login to view tweets
551–560 of 643 posts
Re: Twitter starts to require login to view tweets
#552Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The problem with old.reddit.com (as opposed to teddit) is that numerous links on Reddit will redirect you to the New experience. Absent DNS hacks, you'll find yourself consistently frustrated by this. I have found that keeping the "Use new Reddit as my default experience" box unchecked on reddit.com/prefs results in almost never being redirected to the "new" site. The only exception is when someone uploaded a galle…
Are you using "old.reddit.com" to visit, or "www.reddit.com" and relying on JS for the old-site experience? I'm doing the latter (in large part so that I post old.reddit.com links), and I can assure you It Does Not Work As Expected Or Desired.
Personally, I do the latter.
I never type "old.reddit.com". I'm always on www.reddit.com, and I'm always on the old site experience.
Of course, I don't know how much of that has to do with the fact that I use RES.
Re: Twitter starts to require login to view tweets
#553Earlier quoted context omitted.
If this is your takeaway you’re following toxic people. I have learned a lot and changed my mind on several issues just from Twitter discourse.
My point isn't that meaningful conversation is impossible on twitter. Its that the majority isn't and most abuse the gift of an instant global platform. Its tragedy of the commons on an unprecedented scale. Of course there are worthwhile interactions to be made. But the people making them would have been doing so on the less accessible older internet anyways.
The old internet was filled with hate, racism, sexism, people fighting, hating and swearing. Things are actually better.
The news seems just as negative as social media.
Re: Twitter starts to require login to view tweets
#554Managements always work toward managing towards what they can measure. I’m sure that daily signups are a metric that they track, hence they’ll prioritize signups even at the cost of user frustration and love, something that’s less tangible. This is the kind of thing that kept me off Quora forever. It’s a great resource but I don’t feel like logging in 100% of the time. So now I just ignore all of their links.
With Quora you can just add ?share=1 at the end of the url and you can view the content without logging in.
Re: Twitter starts to require login to view tweets
#555Can somebody chime in why in the world I get so often "Something went wrong" errors when viewing hotlinked tweets? I need to refresh like 5-10 times.
It seems to happen to me when I have an ad blocker. On occasion I try without an adblocker and don't seem to have the issue. It could just be a coincidence though.
Re: Twitter starts to require login to view tweets
#556Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, in this fictitious world where IRC is a stable protocol and easy enough for the average layperson to use, who pays for the IRC server bills and how?
> easy enough for the average layperson to use At one point it was easy enough for the average person to use, because the average person had to deal with a command-line. But tech, in its infinite quest to Make More Money, keeps chasing the dumbest of the dumb so that it can expand its market into an imagined infinity. It kinds of reminds me of the windshield repair shop that takes a baseball bat to nearby windshields…
Having better things to do with your time than learning an obscure CLI is not the same thing as being dumb.
Re: Twitter starts to require login to view tweets
#557Earlier quoted context omitted.
The culture issue alone is a killer. People say they want the old early-90s internet, but that internet only worked that way because almost nobody outside of universities was on it and nothing on it actually mattered to anybody.
Yep. It took me way too long to find the usage numbers (which ironically were within an arm's reach on my bookshelf most of the time), but ~1988 Usenet was under 1 million potential users, and fewer than 150,000 active readers. Even by the mid-1990s, it was under 1 million active participants. Google+ was considered a failed social network with at least 10--100 million active users (by my own conservative estimates b…
On the google+ 99.99% if offered would gladly take google+ for free. It was a huge success.
Google closed it down because they realize they never needed it. You were rarely providing new information to google because you already had an account and they already were tracking you everywhere. Your posts on other social networking sites google knows about and uses. What sites you visit google knows about.
The only thing google+ gives google is your social graph. But not your friends/family social graph more of your professional social graph. I don't think there was a way to target that info through ads into more profit. They probably leveraged access to facebook's data for ads in exchange for shutting it down.
Re: Twitter starts to require login to view tweets
#558Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Remind me again, why did we leave IRC?
plenty of people never left IRC, but Twitter right now is probably a thousand times larger than IRC was at its peak. IRC is a niche community for nerds, not a platform with mainstream appeal. The same is even true for more user friendly, modern services like Mastodon.
99% of users just don't value the things you value in these services.
Re: Twitter starts to require login to view tweets
#559Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is immune, precisely because it's a protocol. Freenode is dead but switching to another network is literally as simple as pointing the client to a different domain name.
So the same as the HTTP protocol (i.e. switching from a website like Twitter to another, similar, website).
Most use it through the app protocol which is cross platform.
Re: Twitter starts to require login to view tweets
#560Earlier quoted context omitted.
For larger subs, yeah. For smaller, specialised topical subs, I will defend them until Reddit forces a similar requirement as Twitter here.
I used to feel the same way, but even the smaller ones are increasingly being co-opted by partisan screechers. Especially in the State/City/Town subreddits.
In the UK, at least one sub has adopted the "no politics" role. Political subs still exists, so there are places to vent political views too.