421–430 of 447 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If give us a Twitter username as an example I'll find an instance thats working. The tweets and the non-t.co URLs are in the RSS.
Thanks - try holly, for example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no objective, public, or shared "value" at play here. The only "values" that matter are the personal whims of whoever happens to own Twitter, or Google or Facebook.
Just because this is a very difficult question doesn't mean we can throw our hands up and pretend it doesn't exist. Many things in life are very difficult and yet worth solving anyway.
What gets a website censored, in the modern corporation-dominated Internet, is going against the interests and preferences of Big Tech owners - and nothing else. Nobody with any power is bound to look out for the public interest, however defined; ICANN is perhaps the only exception that comes to mind.
We can waste our time and attention debating over which targets were more or less deserving of censorship, based on our personal ideas of public interest. But as long as Big Tech is allowed to exist in its current form, we're like powerless peasants arguing about the decisions of kings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I almost didn't believe OP, because it's so comically inept and petty. But, I can also confirm in some private testing there is a deliberate delay.
Considering how common it is to deliberately break (not just with a "you log in now" modal, but not loading content, spinning forever, breaking layouts, etc) websites for non-logged-in mobile users, that's exactly how petty in imagine them to be. Twitter and Reddit do it, and Imgur comes and goes so I can't decide if for them it's deliberate or just incompetence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks - try holly, for example.
Got a message saying Twitter is blocking all access without login. You were right ajb. I was not getting this yesterday though. This also happened back in June but it was only temporary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't obvious at all. It doesn't help for that matter, but that is secondary. On the contrary, it is just a popular excuse to restrict speech because nothing about hate speech is objective. We see bad legislation around the globe and that will never protect any minority. It is a bad idea and damaging and there is ample empirical evidence for that.
I love free speech, but you're going to have to convince me with a lot of evidence that Germany restricting pro-Nazi speech after WW2 was bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because this is a very difficult question doesn't mean we can throw our hands up and pretend it doesn't exist. Many things in life are very difficult and yet worth solving anyway.
I didn't say the concept cannot exist: I said it's not at play here. What gets a website censored, in the modern corporation-dominated Internet, is going against the interests and preferences of Big Tech owners - and nothing else. Nobody with any power is bound to look out for the public interest, however defined; ICANN is perhaps the only exception that comes to mind. We can waste our time and attention debating ove…
That’s not true and you know it. Don’t ignore facts man.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how was the decision made to ban Federalist, but not say Guardian or The Daily Beast? Do you have any process in place to ensure that your political biases don't influence the list, or you don't care about that?
We don't have "processes" at HN. The idea makes my skin crawl. Plenty of both left- and right-wing sites are banned and/or downweighted on HN. When a site is primarily about political battle, we either ban it or downweight it. Which of the two we choose depends on how likely the site is to produce the occasional interesting article (in HN's sense of the word "interesting"). That's why The Federalist and World Workers…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We don't have "processes" at HN. The idea makes my skin crawl. Plenty of both left- and right-wing sites are banned and/or downweighted on HN. When a site is primarily about political battle, we either ban it or downweight it. Which of the two we choose depends on how likely the site is to produce the occasional interesting article (in HN's sense of the word "interesting"). That's why The Federalist and World Workers…
Would you be open to publishing the down-weighting values if they're based on politics not spam? This is the murkiest part to me since it's not just a binary flag.
For sites in this category (i.e. not banned, but downweighted) we don't distinguish between political sites, major media sites, sensational bloggy sites and so on. They're all in the same bucket.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Got a message saying Twitter is blocking all access without login. You were right ajb. I was not getting this yesterday though. This also happened back in June but it was only temporary.
Great - at least it's not me personally being blocked somehow. I hope they do unblock it, but it does show that nitter is still at the mercy of Twitter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason there isn't a delay the second click is because the redirect is cached locally in your browser. Your humble anonymous tipster would appreciate if you do a little legwork.
> The reason there isn't a delay the second click is because the redirect is cached locally in your browser. No, because it’s not an HTTP redirect. It’s an HTML page that redirects you using a meta tag, something that the browser doesn’t cache.